|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing
genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
On Jun 8, 8:29 pm, "Dennis Allen" wrote:
Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis No cheap camera is capable of any kind of decent astronomical images, without attaching to a telescope, but I hesitate to ask what it has to do with geneology? Try a Fuji F20, at least it's high ISO images are clean enough so whatever weather you run into won't matter as much, dark days, etc. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
If the camera doesn't have to be new, you could try getting the older
Olympus C-Z series: C2020Z C4040Z.... A friend has instructions on the requisite accessories to hook it up via a T-mount: http://www.nwgis.com/greg/equip.htm On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:29:45 -0400, "Dennis Allen" wrote: Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis ============= - Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com) 122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA http://flavorj.com/~skysea |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
P.S. He also has pictures he's taken with that camera on his site
(mostly Moon), and I've got a few I've taken on mine: http://flavorj.com/~skysea/Images/Astro/index.html (Moon, planets, Trapezium, M13) On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:29:45 -0400, "Dennis Allen" wrote: Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis ============= - Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com) 122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA http://flavorj.com/~skysea |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
"Dennis Allen" wrote in message ... Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis Any digital camera -- including the simple point-and-shoot cameras -- will give you fine results when you are taking photos of headstones in graveyards for your genealogical work. My experience in photographing old headstones is that the camera is not the problem -- the problems are (1) light not falling on the headstone in such a way as to make the inscription legible; (2) lichens, moss, general crud, and erosion have made the inscriptions almost illegible. So -- when you take a photo of a headstone that you need for your genealogy, unless you are certain that the photo shows the inscription clearly, you need to write the inscription in your genealogy notebook -- which you carry with you at all times. Any digital camera with an LCD screen will let you view the photo so you can tell if the photo shows what you want it to show. I have a Sony DSC-P93 -- it's a few years old -- that I use for terrestrial and astronomic photography. I have had excellent results with it in photographing gravestones; old photos; pages from old diaries, Bibles, and the like; and general photography. For astronomic photography, it depends on what you want. If you are after detailed photos of astronomic objects, then you aren't looking at a small investment -- you'll need a CCD imager; a scope on a mount that has flawless tracking; stacking software; and a lot of time and patience. On the other hand, if you are satisfied with simple photos taken through the eyepiece, you can do that with a camera such as the Sony that I have. Scopetronix sells a variety of adapters. In the case of my Sony DSC-P93, there is a ring around the lens that unlocks and twists off. The Scopetronix adapter twists on. The second part of the adapter is a threaded ring that screws onto an eyepiece and onto the adapter on the camera. Then, slip the eyepiece into the eyepiece holder of the scope, turn on the camera, turn the flash off, look at the LCD screen, focus, shot, and hope you didn't move the scope too much while focussing, shooting, et. With a Scopetronix adapter and patience, you can get decent shots of the moon, Saturn, and Jupiter. Shots of anything else really don't show anything but dots of light. Here are some shots of Saturn with the Sony camera and the Scopetronix adapter: http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astrono...march_2007.htm http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astrono...march_2007.htm I also have a Kodak digital camera -- EasyShare C300. On a few occasions, I held this camera up to the eyepiece and shot -- here are some results: http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astrono...and_saturn.htm http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Astrono...006_photos.htm No doubt you'll receive a lot of answers to your query -- my experience and knowledge are extremely limited but there it is. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
I'll chime in a bit here, too. Look for a camera that has an LCD that
can handle the outdoors... the Kodaks are pretty good in that regard. You'll discover that trying to take pictures in the sunshine... or at least reviewing what you've just taken is much easier with better LCDs. I'd go for a larger LCD, too, so that you can see the composition more easily. As to astro work, you can do some wonderful through the eyepiece stuff, but also you can take some good wide field constellation shots. For that, you should get a camera that is capable of a manual setting and, say, 12-24 seconds exposure. I have an old Kodak DX3900 that works just great. They can take 16 second shots and their color rendition is so good that you can make out tints on stars that match their actual colors. That unit also has the advantage of an infinity setting and dedicated self-timer and infinity buttons-- both a real advantage for astro shots. (Through the scope, you want to do a self-timer so that the shakes settle down before it snaps the shot.) The one downside on many Kodaks is that the self-timer is 10 seconds... the Canons have a 2 second self-timer which makes for much faster turn around for the next shot. But the older Canon's ISO 400 is too speckle--don't know about the newer models; Kodak's 400 is better. Other digicam are even better. The newer cameras now are generally better, but in some cases, they've dropped the older features... the new Kodaks seem to have settled on 8 second max which eliminates good constellation shots. But the older cameras had small LCDs, and generally were miserable outdoors, so the newer cameras are the better bet. Check out the reviews on such sites as Steve's Digicam and Digital Photography Review-- IIRC, both show low light and night shots in their reviews--- which is a helpful guide. Larry Stedman Suburban Milky Way |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
Well, after I'm done with my genealogy work I'd like to get my feet wet
in the digital world. I have a big scope, but still using a Nikon F for prime focus work and a Canon MG for piggybacking milkway shots...Dennis "Rich" wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 8, 8:29 pm, "Dennis Allen" wrote: Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis No cheap camera is capable of any kind of decent astronomical images, without attaching to a telescope, but I hesitate to ask what it has to do with geneology? Try a Fuji F20, at least it's high ISO images are clean enough so whatever weather you run into won't matter as much, dark days, etc. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
So far I've had recommendations on a Fuji F20, Olympus C-Z series, Sony
DSC-P93, and the Kodak DX3900. Except for F20, these cameras are a few years old. Does anyone know the current models of these cameras? "Larry Stedman" wrote in message ... I'll chime in a bit here, too. Look for a camera that has an LCD that can handle the outdoors... the Kodaks are pretty good in that regard. You'll discover that trying to take pictures in the sunshine... or at least reviewing what you've just taken is much easier with better LCDs. I'd go for a larger LCD, too, so that you can see the composition more easily. As to astro work, you can do some wonderful through the eyepiece stuff, but also you can take some good wide field constellation shots. For that, you should get a camera that is capable of a manual setting and, say, 12-24 seconds exposure. I have an old Kodak DX3900 that works just great. They can take 16 second shots and their color rendition is so good that you can make out tints on stars that match their actual colors. That unit also has the advantage of an infinity setting and dedicated self-timer and infinity buttons-- both a real advantage for astro shots. (Through the scope, you want to do a self-timer so that the shakes settle down before it snaps the shot.) The one downside on many Kodaks is that the self-timer is 10 seconds... the Canons have a 2 second self-timer which makes for much faster turn around for the next shot. But the older Canon's ISO 400 is too speckle--don't know about the newer models; Kodak's 400 is better. Other digicam are even better. The newer cameras now are generally better, but in some cases, they've dropped the older features... the new Kodaks seem to have settled on 8 second max which eliminates good constellation shots. But the older cameras had small LCDs, and generally were miserable outdoors, so the newer cameras are the better bet. Check out the reviews on such sites as Steve's Digicam and Digital Photography Review-- IIRC, both show low light and night shots in their reviews--- which is a helpful guide. Larry Stedman Suburban Milky Way |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
Does anyone have any options on the Kodak Easyshare C875? Could I
piggyback it on my telescope and take milkway shots to create a mosaic? How hard would it be to mount to the eyepiece? "Dennis Allen" wrote in message ... Hi. In a short while I'll be on my week-long roadtrip. I'm doing genealogy work on my family tree, visiting cemeteries and county clerks offices. I'm getting a laptop for the family tree software and a digital camera to take headstone images. I've got a tight tight budget, so I ordered Gateway NX570X laptop with a 5 hour battery. Should have enough room for family tree software and any planetarium/astrophotography software. I've got a little left in the budget over for a digital camera, but not much, certainly not enough for a serious camera like a 30D. Does anyone have any recommendation for a budget digital camera that could take both terrestrial and celestial images? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...Dennis |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Less then $250 digital camera?
Dennis, check out Scopetronix digi-t adapter kits. One takes off the
eyeguard on standard Plossls, attaches the digi-T system and then with the appropriate camera adapter screws them together. Tight fit, works well, and the direct mating means that you don't have the positioning and other hassles of other systems. Yep, we've been recommending older cameras because that's what we've seen and used... the key is to check out the newer cameras to see if they have the features being mentioned he manual controls, at least 12 seconds of open shutter time, fast self-timer, ISO 400 or 800 that doesn't end up speckled, etc. Given that you have a combo interest-- daytime type work, plus night time--I recommend that you look at the major digicam sites (steve's digicam, dpreview, dcresource, etc.)-- look at the forums (even post your questions there, too), their reviews are comprehensive and cover a range of picture taking-- low-light, document photography, outdoors, etc. They're an incredible resource! You could see if they've reviewed the C875 and check the Kodak site for specs on the camera. If you're under darker skies, and have a good camera mount on the scope, you should be able to get some nice Mikly Way shots with the right camera! In article , "Dennis Allen" wrote: Does anyone have any options on the Kodak Easyshare C875? Could I piggyback it on my telescope and take milkway shots to create a mosaic? How hard would it be to mount to the eyepiece? Larry Stedman Suburban Milky Way |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital Camera for Astrophotography | Mark Hansen | Misc | 4 | May 21st 04 10:53 PM |
Digital camera astrophotography | Frank Mazzola | CCD Imaging | 1 | May 13th 04 06:28 PM |
Digital Camera | John Zinni | Amateur Astronomy | 50 | December 23rd 03 06:13 AM |
"Best" digital camera | scott | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | November 30th 03 12:42 PM |
Digital camera vs. digital SLR | Michael A. Covington | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | October 27th 03 01:45 PM |